RC March 2018 report

Report on the Radical Contact Spring Gathering

30 March – 2 April 2018

Blekinge Folkhögskola, Bräkne-Hoby

Who was there

We were 16 adults (15 full participants plus our cook) and one child (1.5 years). 9 were from Gothenburg, 3 from Malmö, 2 from Bräkne-Hoby, 2 from Copenhagen and one from Helsinki. 4 non binary persons, 3 cis men, the rest cis women. Two people of colour. 10 had been to Radical Contact meetings before. The majority had done contact improvisation before, but a few had no or almost no experience with it.

What we did

The four organisers directly involved in the preparation of this gathering met in the evening of Wednesday 28 March at the home of one of our group, who has connections to the school and lived nearby at the time.

We took some time to relax and reconnect as a team. The following day we did some cleaning and setting up in the small house the gathering was going to take place in, and in the classroom of the school we would be using as a dormitory for most of the participants.

Friday

The gathering opened on the morning of Friday 30 March with a physical theatre game led by SA: saying hello to the group. This was followed by an introduction round in which we shared some aspects of how we identify, or are identified by others, in terms of class, race, gender, and more. Some found it very challenging to speak of such personal matters so soon, or felt some resistance to labelling and categorising themselves in this way.

After lunch AW and EM led a “Safer Spaces” workshop. EM has written up a description of many exercises on this topic that have been developed at Radical Contact gatherings over the past few years, and this session was loosely based on EM’s write-up. The group said they wanted more of this kind of material.

Then VR and SH led a Lindy Hop workshop. VR talked a bit about the history of Lindy Hop. The group worked together in trying to remember steps and teaching each other. In the evening there was a jam facilitated by LR, with a warmup using images of nonhuman bodies.

Every day after dinner we had sharing groups. These groups were meant to be a space for “digesting” the day’s experiences. On the first day of the gathering we ran an introduction to co-counselling, as an inspiration and to give the sharing groups some tools to work with. The groups’ composition was meant to remain stable over the four days of the gathering, and mainly it did. But we made some adjustments for participants who felt that for the format to work for them they would need to be in groups together with people that already have some experience with co-counselling.

Saturday

On the morning of the second day, Saturday 31 March, AW led a workshop inspired by Andrew Suseno’s introduction to ParCon at the Radical Contact gathering in Gothenburg in February (and prepared via Skype talks with Andrew). First the group explored the upstairs spaces of the house and the stairs through the lens of Parcon. Then came a part focusing on the concept of borders. The group divided into two, one group embodying the borders, the other exploring ways of interacting with the borders (using tactics like laying next to them, climbing and running in to and over them, and going around them.

We had a one hour whole group meeting every day before lunch. The one on Saturday was devoted to discussing part of a draft for our “community guidelines”. The organising team had come up with this draft in response to requests and inspiration received at the gathering in February, on the basis of our 2012 Safer Spaces paper, our invitation text and other sources. The part of the guidelines we discussed dealt with how we want to run meetings.

After lunch DM led a session dealing with the concept of body as landscape in contact improvisation, verbally and nonverbally expressing consent, asking a partner to modify their touch, etc. In a sense a continuation of the Safer Spaces session of the day before.

This was followed by VR leading a workshop called “Twerking Consent”. She told us a bit about the history of twerking, the role it plays for women of colour, and her approach to being a subject who chooses to be seen.

In the evening SA facilitated a jam with a focus on group improvisation.

Sunday

On the morning of Sunday 1 April we had a focused jam. The afternoon was dedicated to the evaluation of the event and a brainstorming session on the history and future of Radical Contact. In the evaluation session everyone filled out a nine question online survey the organisers had prepared.

Sunday evening there was an ‘improdisco’, with a playlist with contributions by all participants.

Monday

In the morning slot of Monday 2 April SA and ID led an Original Play workshop. We ran a short meeting to clarify who had to leave when and organise the cleaning. We had a short “talking while dancing” session on the politics of Radical Contact and then a closing circle, followed by lunch, clean-up and departures.

Some survey results

A majority felt positive or very positive about the pre-gathering mailing list and their contact with the organising group before the meeting. Many liked learning about each other through reading people’s introductions before coming, but many also felt more information arrived via email than they were able to take in. People did feel they got the information they needed and that they could contact us with questions.

57,14 % felt positive about the gathering, 35,71% very positive and 7,14 % neutral. Many liked the people, the atmosphere, the food, the structure, the organisers. Many found it interesting and challenging, and liked the work on safer spaces.

Some different reflections on the use of time were: finding the schedule too crammed with content, with too little time to reflect; hard to take time off when the group is small and you felt you needed to be supportive; a need for clearer roles for practical tasks and more time for doing them.

Some thought more different people taking leadership would have been good. Some thought that a more diverse group in terms of class and “race” would have been good, and more discussions/labs concerning political topics, and a political agenda connected to the place we were in.

This summary is based on responses from 13 participants in the survey.